Prev
Next

NSW dodges a bullet thanks to the Greens

Jeremy Buckingham

by Jeremy Buckingham

15 Apr 05:45am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Greens, Independents, Nsw Election, Nsw Greens, Pauline Hanson

93 comments

The Labor Party never stop spinning.  The Greens and the Nationals candidates stormed past Pauline Hanson on Tuesday to fill the last two seats in the NSW upper house. But Labor is now trying to take credit for stopping Pauline Hanson spreading her divisive politics for the next eight years. 

Pauline: Stopped by the Greens. Photo: Ray Strange

The major stars of the ‘stop Pauline Hanson show’ were the large number of Greens voters.  A record 453,125 people voted Greens in NSW on March 26.  That’s four and a half times as many people as the 98,043 who voted for Pauline Hanson.

The Greens did gain an extra 3,738 votes from Labor preferences.

This was a handy gain in a very tight race, but just as vital were the 6,266 preferences from the Independent John Hatton’s voters, the 3,312 preferences from Democrats voters, the 2,490 preferences from No Parking Meters Party, and finally the 3,196 preferences from Family First voters.

In the end, out of 4.3 million votes cast at the election, it came down to a final gap of 2,437 votes between Pauline Hanson and the Greens for the second last seat, and an even narrower 1,306 vote gap between the Nationals Sarah Johnston and Pauline Hanson for the final seat – one of the closest finishes in NSW election history.  Every vote does count.

If the Greens had swapped preferences with Labor, Barry O’Farrell would not have missed an opportunity during the campaign to run the line: “a vote for the Greens is a vote for NSW Labor”. 

Even Labor’s Luke Foley will agree that Labor were a toxic mess this election.  In fact, in the small number of electorates where the Greens did recommend a preference to Labor it hurt the Greens primary vote. Any preference association or deal with Labor would have hurt the Greens primary vote and Pauline Hanson could very well be in parliament today.

Labor should acknowledge that they simply did not deserve Greens preferences.  Their record of failure and scandals meant very few local Greens groups, who decide local preference recommendations, could stomach preferencing them.

Now NSW faces an Upper House with a clear right wing majority, with the Shooters and Fishers Party sharing balance of power with Reverend Fred Nile.  The direct result of Labor’s failure in government and the resulting landslide is that we’ll have a preacher in our bedrooms and pit bulls in our national parks. 

But Premier Barry O’Farrell need not rely on the Shooters Party and the Reverend Fred Nile to pass legislation.  The Greens are open to assessing legislation on its merits and constructive negotiation. 

If the new government is serious about reforming the planning system to include greater community input, sorting out our transport woes, and protecting prime agricultural land from mining, then there is potential to bypass the Lunar Right and work with the Greens in the new parliament.  Our door is open.

- Jeremy Buckingham is a newly elected Member of the NSW Legislative Council, an Orange City Councillor and former stone mason.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

93 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sarah Bath says:

      05:03am | 15/04/11

      Sorry Jeremy but you are completely missing the point.  We won that seat because quite simply, the Australian people want our progressive policies.  It has nothing to do with ALP allocating preferences,  the vile hanson performance or the other neocons. It is pure and simple because we are performing well in the electorate.  Australians vote for us because they know we are the only party that has the interests of Australia foremost in our mind.
      Lets look at the facts Jeremy.  We have one federal member.  We have Members in most states and after July we will control the Senate.  For all intensive purposes we have balance of power in the federal lower house unless of course the PM wants to go to an election.

      So how about you actually write about some of the excellent policies of the Greens and how they will secure our country into the next millenium and as a leader of alternative energy.  How about you come to a Greens party meeting to see real democracy in action.  How about you actually read some of our policies and acknowledge that it is our policies the Australian people want and that is why we are getting such a good result.

      Should there be another election soon I guarantee we will win mor lower and upper house seats because we are the new mainstream party.
      Please give credit where credit is due.

      Sarah
      ps: lets see how many climate deniers, neocons and neanderthals now respond with stupid comments about personality rather than content.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:39am | 15/04/11

      I would normally never vote for the greens.  If it was a choice between them and Pauline Hanson, there would be no contest.  There is no place for racist bigots in our parliament!  Right throughout rural Australia there are people with similar ignorant views to Pauline’s.  It’s a national disgrace! And the Liberal Party panders to them with their asylum seeker crap!

    • Pat says:

      07:23am | 15/04/11

      Well done Sarah. Thank you for laying the bait, but this sly old fox won’t take it!
      If your post is not meant to be tongue-in-cheek, then you are seriously deluded and should seek help along with acotrel.
      By the way, acotrel, being patriotic does not make you a racist or a bigot.
      The national disgrace you refer to is the fact that the interests of minority groups are placed ahead of what the majority want.
      I would like to see what you “intelligent” city dwellers would do without us “ignorant” rural dwellers.
      The nation is overdue for a famine to teach you arrogant bastards a lesson.

    • jub jub says:

      07:28am | 15/04/11

      Better a green bottom-of-garden fairy than a Red Scary Hairy.

      But barely…

    • TimB says:

      07:47am | 15/04/11

      Here we go. Final proof Sarah is a troll. This little bit to Jeremy:

      “So how about you actually write about some of the excellent policies of the Greens and how they will secure our country into the next millenium and as a leader of alternative energy.  How about you come to a Greens party meeting to see real democracy in action….” etc.

      Jeremy *is* the Greens MP who beat Hanson. Why is Sarah inviting a Greens MP to a Greens Party meeting?

      If she were a true Green she would know who Jeremy was instead of spending most of her post telling him why he was wrong and what he should do.

      A bit sad really. It’s always fun watching the loony Greens in action. Looks like I’ll have to get my fix from non-fictional Green loons like Lee Rhiannon & Fiona Byrne.

    • Bris Jack says:

      08:12am | 15/04/11

      Sarah, Jeremy Buckingham NSW Green’s MP.
      Main stream you are joking?
      Have you looked at the polls lately?

    • CJ Morgan says:

      08:16am | 15/04/11

      Another day, another troll from “Sarah Bath”, who is very obviously not a member of the Greens.  If she was, she’d know that Jeremy Buckingham has attended more Greens meetings and has more knowledge of Greens policy and participatory democracy than s/he ever will.

      Why does The Punch participate in this clumsy attempt at deception, given that “Sarah” has been outed as a troll time and again here?  You guys must really have a low opinion of your anti-Green readership’s intelligence, but I guess it’s confirmed every time one of them takes “Sarah” seriously.

      Oh, and “Sarah”: the expression is ‘for all intents and purposes”, not “for all intensive purposes”.  Mind you, your intents and purposes are pretty obvious.

    • Lee Enfield says:

      08:16am | 15/04/11

      The Greens are not a progessive party, they are an oppressive party. The Greens would like to restrict peoples freedom and liberty for their own good, based on radical beliefs and ideals, that on a whole, are not supported by the vast majority of Australians.

      Also Sarah, what is with the insults and petty name calling of those who have a different opinion to you. The last time I checked, Australia is a democracy and we have the implied right of freedom of speech. So because you believe in something means it is right and everyone who doesn’t is not only wrong, but are climate deniers, neocons and neanderthals.
      You are waiting to see how many of the above named people respond with stupid comments about personality rather than content. Well you set the tone by lablelling people who don’t agree with you with stupid name calling, attacking them, not their content.
      So don’t try and take the moral high ground, when you where the one who initiated the descent in to the moral low ground.

    • Nigel says:

      08:20am | 15/04/11

      Interesting comment: “we will control the Senate”.  Clearly you have no idea about how the Australian political process works if you think that 9 Senators will somehow ‘control’ the actions and thoughts of 67 others.

    • acotrel says:

      08:50am | 15/04/11

      @Pat
      The ‘majority’ of Australians want immigration, and to recognise our obligations which Menzies accepted when he signed up to the UNHCR!
      They also want to preserve the dignity of aboriginals and include them in our society!

    • Ryan says:

      09:43am | 15/04/11

      @Sarah Bath: I read your policies, how about the one that is in direct contravention of the universal declaration of human rights. Oh right I remember, your socialist / communist / green party cares not about human rights.

    • fml says:

      10:15am | 15/04/11

      @pat,

      “being patriotic does not make you a racist or a bigot.”, No it doesn’t have to, but, there is an extremely fine line which many people here on this blog can not see.

      “I would like to see what you “intelligent” city dwellers would do without us “ignorant” rural dwellers.”

      We would just import cheap food from asia, all you “rural dwellers” do is complain, no water, free trade is bad, no internet, too many immigrants.

      “The national disgrace you refer to is the fact that the interests of minority groups are placed ahead of what the majority want.”

      I keep seeing this theme throughout these blogs, what majority? “rural dwellers” are definitely not in the majority, us “city dwellers” are. If you are in the majority, vote, just like everyone else who partakes in the democratic process.

      “The nation is overdue for a famine to teach you arrogant bastards a lesson.”

      Instead of spending my taxes on subsidising our useless, whinging farmers we can spend it importing cheap food from asia. Im sick and tired of all the handouts farmers get, you shouldnt even get the NBN, why the hell do you need the internet to raise swine?

      Im tired of the government pandering to the minority farmers! Im patriotic, not racist against Australians, we “city dwellers’’ are in the majority we should be heard!

      If you dont like it leave!

    • Ryan says:

      10:15am | 15/04/11

      @acotrel: clearly if that was the case then Gillard would not have once again lied to the Australian public by announcing and offshore processing center during the election, if she erroneously believed as you do about the ‘majority’ opinion on immigration then she would have announced an open door policy. Its a shame reality seems to continue to escape you.

    • Drew says:

      10:23am | 15/04/11

      “Sarah” you have just completely and epically failed trolling.

      You are clearly and obviously NOT a Greens member as if you were you would know that the author whom you are “inviting to a Greens meeting” is a NSW Greens MP.

      Enough of your wolf-in-sheep’s clothing trolling attempts to make Greens look bad.

    • rob says:

      10:34am | 15/04/11

      Acotrel and Sarah Bath should get married and live unhappily ever after.What a pair of lunatics.

    • James says:

      11:05am | 15/04/11

      I reply about content for you Sarah. For all “intensive purposes” demonstrates you are poorly educated and calls into question the rest of your arguments if you substitute “for all intents and purposes” with your spoonerism.

    • TimB says:

      11:28am | 15/04/11

      @ Drew, Agree.

      The Greens don’t need Sarah to make them look bad. They’re perfectly capable of behaving like loons all on their own.

    • Tom says:

      11:54am | 15/04/11

      @acotrel, couldn’t agree more ... but I thought you were going to say you would vote informal because both are racist, intolerant and dangerous.

      One thinks we are being swamped and the other wants a boycott ...

    • Tom (the other one) says:

      12:21pm | 15/04/11

      @Tom, obviously, there are two of us. Do you want to take another name? As far as I know,  I had been using it for some time before you came into the picture? However, I am happy to run with your wishes. Please advise.

    • Erick says:

      12:48pm | 15/04/11

      Toms: You should settle this with keyboards at ten paces, at dawn.

    • Paul says:

      01:29pm | 15/04/11

      Intensive purposes? I’m now convinced Sarah Bath is a The Punch stooge fired up before dawn to set the comment stage.
      No one, not even a Green (purported) can be this ignorant and type.

    • Sherlock says:

      02:45pm | 15/04/11

      Ok I’ve gone and done it.
      “Sarah Bath” is not a name but a carefully conceived anagram of “Hath Arabs” - a little known misnomer or alternative name of the League of Arab Nations (because, quite literally, it ‘hath Arabs’ within it..).

      So now we have understood that fact, we can reapply the filter to the comments thusly made and conclude that they are a form of denial by exaggeration, and that in exaggerating the perceived Green stance, the poster (or posters, cos there’s a whole league of them, remember) seeks to encourage support for the opposite.
      And what is the opposite of a perceived Green stance?
      Oil-based fuels, for one.
      And what is the primary source of income for the league of Arab nations?
      It aint solar panels.
      Post on, thou sneaky league… post on.. I’m all over you.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:58pm | 15/04/11

      Acotrel,
      Are you suggesting there are no “racist bigots in our parliament”?
      As to “rural Australian(s)” who think like Pauline,aren’t they just as entitled to their view, as you are to yours?

      While I do not agree with most of Paulines views, she makes just as much sense as many others in our parliament.

    • jim says:

      12:01am | 16/04/11

      Sarah with respect you are quite quite mad. I think Jeremy Buckingham mat have attended a Greens meeting or two in his time, and perhaps as a newly elected Greens MP. he has probably scanned a few policy documents as well. Yegods! I think you might have been on the turps before you read his article.

    • acotrel says:

      09:04pm | 16/04/11

      @John A Neve Just because someone seems to make sense to you, doesn’t mea n the y’re not an idiot.!  If you talk to any crim, you’ll find they make perfect sense, it’s just that there is a fundamental flaw which will get you the holiday if you track doen their path! Delusion is common, and infectious, and Hanson has a great big dose of it!

    • John A Neve says:

      08:43am | 17/04/11

      Acotrel,
      I note you failed to address either of my questions!  No, not surprised you cannot, can you?
      Pauline at least speaks up, unlike many backbenchers who just toe their paries line. You might make a good backbencher yourself.

    • John C says:

      05:17am | 15/04/11

      I think we can all agree that the Parliament is better off without Hanson as a member.

      That said, the writer has it all wrong.yes, we have dodged a bullet;that bullet is the Greens having the balance of power. We may well have avoided a trade war with Israel.

      And it is really self serving to the nth degree to claim our salvation is owed to the Greens. In an election of historic protest against Labor, not all that many extra votes went to the Greens. Mr Buckingham can determine the reasons why by looking at the statements and actions of the extreme and loony left within his own party.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      05:34am | 15/04/11

      Yes Jeremy NSW dodged an air rifle pellet and got hit by a 7.62 SLR round instead.
      Pauline would have been far preferable to your loony Party, but hey enjoy your time in Parliament.
      I hope the Court of Disputed returns orders a recount and maybe with a fairer distribution of preferences, we could still see Pauline sail past you.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      05:37am | 15/04/11

      Good news! Barry O’Farrell is already working with the Greens:

      “NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has told the Greens-run Marrickville Council to drop its boycott of Israel or face the sack. In a letter to Greens Mayor Fiona Byrne, Mr O’Farrell threatened to use his powers under the Local Government Act to move against the Sydney council if it did not comply.
      In the letter, the premier gave the council a 28-day deadline.”

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      07:49am | 15/04/11

      Oh how cool is that?

      Go Bazza! Show them who’s boss. And let this be a warning to every other local council who seems to think they should be wasting their time on international affairs. You’re a *local* council. LOCAL. Get your bloody priorities straight.

    • Jon says:

      08:36am | 15/04/11

      Footpaths and Parks, its simple!

    • Super D says:

      08:49am | 15/04/11

      Working with or working over?

      Either way its long overdue. 

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see some long overdue forced council amalgamations.

    • Ironside says:

      09:18am | 15/04/11

      Booya, go Barry

      The sooner Local councils of every stripe are put back in their place the better, the Greens councils more than most need a slap down

    • Seano says:

      09:57am | 15/04/11

      Execllent.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      10:31am | 15/04/11

      Can’t believe we all agree on this. Where is a dissenting opinion?

    • Seano says:

      11:16am | 15/04/11

      I doubt there’s any sensible person who thinks that a council whose attention should be focused on providing quality services and infrastructure such as garbage removal and footpaths, would be able to justify a boycott of Israel.

    • James1 says:

      11:51am | 15/04/11

      I am happy to dissent here. 

      O’Farrell has it all wrong, and I disagree with his letter to Mayor Fiona Byrne.  He shouldn’t have given them 28 days to drop the Act, he should have given them 24 hours.

      Happy Tony?

    • Knemon says:

      03:38pm | 15/04/11

      Spot on TimB - Even I agree grin

      Foreign affairs are not the job of any council - they should stick to what they do best, picking up trash and giving developers a hard time!

    • B says:

      05:14pm | 15/04/11

      Erick’s above fans rephrased:

      HERP DERP

    • Al says:

      06:56am | 15/04/11

      Great to see a rep from a non-traditional Green area like Orange. Does show that people need not be bound to old ideas about who the Greens can or can not work with in parliament. I’m also optimistic that the new Premier can find common ground with Green members… work on a policy-by-policy approach. As it should be in a mature democracy.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:15am | 15/04/11

      I wish the Greens and ALP would grow up.  Who cares who kept her out?  I don’t.

      Just something from left field - if the Liberals could count on Hanson, would that mean they could do without the Hunters & Gatherers, or the Fred Niles?  I think the deals that the Libs will do with those parties have the potential to be more damaging than any deal Hanson might have asked for.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      01:49pm | 15/04/11

      “I wish the Greens and ALP would grow up.”

      Why?

      “Who cares who kept her out?  I don’t.”

      I agree. Who are the Swans playing this wekend?

      “Just something from left field - if the Liberals could count on Hanson, would that mean they could do without the Hunters & Gatherers, or the Fred Niles?”

      Count them

      “I think the deals that the Libs will do with those parties have the potential to be more damaging than any deal Hanson might have asked for. “

      They have been there forever and are not scary at all. Dealing with those guys is much preferable to dealing with the NSW Greens.

      You think NSW Labor is bad…...look at Byrne as an example. The OP here is no better. Just wait until Lee gets going in the senate in July. You will be wishing Hanson was back in full cry after these turkeys fire up.

    • Dave says:

      08:04am | 15/04/11

      Oh Jeremy, please stop the hyperbole and grow up. I live in a Greens dominated LGA and they are juvenile and inefficient. Scary words about Pauline Hanson and the Lunar rights can’t hide those facts. I’m afraid your lame contribution does bode well for the Greens in the NSW parliament.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      01:52pm | 15/04/11

      It’s hyperBPOWL

    • SS says:

      02:55pm | 15/04/11

      Yes dave,the anti-semetic policies seem to sit well with green nazi’s,good luck with that,history will dictate greens future as it did with hitler

    • Lexi says:

      08:09am | 15/04/11

      The local comunity is proud of you Jeremy! It’s great for there to be a representative of regional voters… The Nat’s gave up that job years ago.

      Reply

    • Nigel says:

      08:26am | 15/04/11

      A one eyed bigoted piece of rubbish the likes I have not seen before.
      How can you state so obvious statistics that have no relevance? 450k + votes for the Green eyed monster (state wide) and 90k for an independent (in one electorate). And the only way you could beat her was with preferences. I hope that it is true what you say about having the Austrlalian peoples best interest at heart. Do we agree, no, but it is best for us right?
      Pull your head out of where the sun does not shine and look at it in the mirror and honestly tell everyone you beat her fair and square.

      Reply

    • Michel Aflaq says:

      08:58am | 15/04/11

      It might be best if Jeremy quietly celebrated his win and prepared for his eight year term in ‘the Red Morgue’ rather than raising the issue of ‘divisive politics’ while the Greens Party is busy implementing its ‘polite modern rendering of Kristallnacht’ in Marrickville.

      “But Labor is now trying to take credit for stopping Pauline Hanson spreading her divisive politics for the next eight years.”  Replace ‘Pauline Hanson’ with ‘Fiona Byrne’ and ‘eight’ with ‘four’ then NSW Labor might justifiably take some credit.

      There is a surfeit of GreenSpin about ‘defeating Pauline Hanson’ in the NSW Legislative Council election.  The fact is that the last candidate elected in 21st position was Sarah Johnstone of the National Party, edging out Ms Hanson by 1,306 votes.

      Reply

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      03:55pm | 15/04/11

      What complete crap.  Not one person will die because of BDS, but illegal Israel companies will lose money.

      Supporting the slave labour used in the illegally occupied West Bank while Palestinians starve all around them is disgusting and that is what you morons are supporting.

      Israel is importing people from all over Asia to make goods in illegal companies operating in illegally occupied Palestine and you dingbats support that?

      The problem with only reading and listening to the Murdoch school of thought is that you can’t be bothered to find out that even the British Quakers society support the BDS.

      Why the hell should Israel and diaspora jews profit from slavery?

    • MarK says:

      07:35pm | 15/04/11

      I heard Israel is really the devil in disguise and hurts kittens.

      Confirm/deny plox.

    • stephen says:

      06:40pm | 16/04/11

      Well if the Quakers can profit from slavery, then why can’t (one of the great sinners) I ?

    • Ironside says:

      09:06am | 15/04/11

      So jeremy, what you are saying is that the greens who polled 453,125 votes across the whole of the state, bearing in mind that they ran a candidate in every electorate were only got 4 times as many votes as an independent running in a single electorate? And yet somehow are more representative of the will of the people of New South Wales…you are either deluded, ignorant, or a member of the Greens….oh wait a minute…….

      The greens didn’t beat Hanson. A coalition of every single party, putting her last in preferences is what beat her. Take another look at her primary vote…….98 thousand people voted for her….in one electorate. That number is staggering.

      Personally I don’t like Hanson, I don’t believe she is intelligent enough to have a roll in running the state, but I believe preference voting of the type that was used to beat her is inherently undemocratic, as it has denied the rights of almost one hundred thousand citizens to the representation in government that they wanted.

      Reply

    • Rick says:

      10:06am | 15/04/11

      I didn’t think there were 98,000 dick heads in NSW but then again…........

    • Gek says:

      10:32am | 15/04/11

      Ummm…those 98,000 people were across the whole state, not in one electorate. Hanson was running for an upper house seat.

      That’s about 2% of the voting population. Nowhere near enough to give her a claim on one of the 21 seats on offer.

    • Drew says:

      10:36am | 15/04/11

      Ironside you may want to stop and educate yourself how Upper House voting systems work before commenting here.

      Pauline ran for NSW Legislative Council of course, thus why she was up against the Greens in the Upper House.

      The NSW Legislative Council (ie. the Upper House, the same as the Australian Senate) has no electorates.

      Every single form across the entire state is exactly the same.

      Therefore she did not run in a “single electorate”. Her electorate was the entire state of NSW. She was on your upper house ballot form, had you actually stopped to look at it for a minute.

    • rob says:

      10:42am | 15/04/11

      Well Rick you make it 98,001. Welcome to the crowd dickhead.

    • Rick says:

      11:08am | 15/04/11

      sorry Rob I’m not in NSW you DICKHEAD! assuming you were one of the dickheads who voted for Pauline

    • Tom says:

      11:15am | 15/04/11

      Hanson advocated thyat “all Australians should receive equal traetment under the law”. If you don’t agree with that principle, Rick, you are a bigot and a dick head. End of story.

    • Ironside says:

      11:17am | 15/04/11

      mea culpa,
      i wasn’t aware that the upper house representation in NSW was assessed across the whole state rather than by electorate.
      I’m a Queenslander so you can forgive me for that i’m sure.
      The point stands however that one person managing that much representation and only being denied by preference voting allocations appears very undemocratic.

    • Seano says:

      01:39pm | 15/04/11

      “one person managing that much representation and only being denied by preference voting allocations appears very undemocratic. “

      Bollocks. 98,000 is 2% which is trivial. She doesn’t deserve to be one of the 20 representitives which such minority support. I fail to see what is undemocratic about people getting their prefered representitive. Seems to me it’s only “undemocratic” when she loses.

    • Ironside says:

      04:11pm | 15/04/11

      @ Seano
      How many other single candidates go that many votes? we know that at least 2 seantors, a green and a nation, only beat her on peferences….just, how many others got less than that.

      I dont care who the candidate is and i dont like hanson, but preferential voting is undemocratic.

    • Rick says:

      04:55pm | 15/04/11

      Tom…..Thats all Stralians….......no just Fish’n chip shop owners .....sounds like your another of those poor miss-guided fools who think that Pauline has what it takes to represent you xenofobic lot….......Please explain…...........oh I forgot if I need to explain you will never understand

    • Seano says:

      07:29pm | 15/04/11

      @Ironside - Firstly it’s a preferential system, many people vote accordingly. That is they vote knowing where their vote will end up eventually, therefore Hanson’s single candidate result is largely meaningless.

      Secondly the whole point of a preferential system is that people get their preferred choice. More people prefer Hanson out of office than those that prefer her in. What would be wrong would be a candidate getting in on a small number of votes being split between a large number of candidates. That would be truly undemocratic.

    • Tom says:

      11:04am | 17/04/11

      Yes or no Rick? All eyes are on you. Are all Australians equal under the law or not? Yes or no Rick? Try giving a non-smartarse response.

    • Hugatree says:

      09:44am | 15/04/11

      Yeah, we dodged a bullet and got a frikin rocket in having another Green in Parliament

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      12:11pm | 15/04/11

      Actually the Nats nudged her out. See the electoral Commission site. I agree though with your assessment on the Greens.

    • Rick says:

      05:08pm | 15/04/11

      Tom who cares as long as shes gone!

    • Ryan says:

      09:45am | 15/04/11

      I hardly think getting a bunch of sycophant communists who would readily stomp on the universal declaration of human rights could be classified as “dodging a bullet”, what we have got is yet more of a party whose main aim and objective is to destroy Australia followed closely by their anti-Semitic agenda.

      Reply

    • fml says:

      10:17am | 15/04/11

      Greens “stomp on the universal declaration of human rights” ?

      How so? back up with facts thanks.

    • Ryan says:

      12:08pm | 15/04/11

      @fml: the universal declaration of human rights article 20 item 2 states “No one may be compelled to belong to an association”, the greens policy is for compulsory student unionism, this is just a taste of the human rights they are ready and willing to stomp on, lets not even get started on the blatant anti-Semitic agenda of the Greens.

    • fml says:

      12:24pm | 15/04/11

      @Ryan,

      Although a tad melodramatic, fair point.

    • Ryan says:

      12:44pm | 15/04/11

      @fml: hardly, there are 30 articles in the universal declaration of human rights, to intentionally breach one of these through a public policy shows their underlying complete lack of respect for human rights.

    • fml says:

      01:25pm | 15/04/11

      @ryan,

      I was agreeing with you, somewhat, I dont agree with voluntary student unionism, im an unsure of the fiona byrne situation (which i assume is what you are referring to), but if she did say what everyone here is saying, i dont agree with that either.

      I agree with what your saying as individual statements, I just think “underlying complete lack of respect for human rights” is a bit melodramtic.

    • Andrew says:

      10:04am | 15/04/11

      I love how it’s all ” Oh no side deals with the Christian democrats/shoots” but “working with the greens” when it amounts to the same thing.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      10:58am | 15/04/11

      It is disappointing that we will have to pay for the salary and all associated costs of another Green in the NSW Parliament. There is little positive in what the Greens policies have to offer. Their policies are far more extreme than what Pauline Hansen had to offer.

      We can thank the Greens for implementing racist action, e.g. the boycott on Israel, the influencing of the Queensland Govt to discriminate against indigenous people by implementing the Wild Rivers Act .

      We can thank the Greens for pushing the Labor Govt into proposing the draconian climate carbon tax.

      We can thank the Greens for pushing anti-moral legislation, such as legalising euthanasia.

      Reply

    • greenisthenewRED says:

      11:22am | 15/04/11

      whilst i am grateful that hanson didnt win the seat,
      i would much rather have her than have suffer
      another of those regressive wealth hating
      totaltarian green communist lunatics.

      Reply

    • Polly Dee says:

      11:56am | 15/04/11

      Wow! Such a lot of hysteria about the Greens and misrepresenting their policies.
      Congratulations to Jeremy Buckingham who is a down to earth, hard working regional representative. Not a “loony leftist, communist” type at all!

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      09:40pm | 15/04/11

      Was that sarcasm, he is a member of the Greens, he is a “loony leftist, communist”.

    • Graeme says:

      12:57pm | 15/04/11

      “intensive purposes”? How about intents and purposes

      Reply

    • James Hunter says:

      01:41pm | 15/04/11

      Jeremy,
      Well Well Sir if you feel the Greens are a better bet then Pauline then you reqaly do need to seek urgent medical help for your delusions.
      At least Pauline wants an equal go for every one the Greens seem to want to support Terrorists,Tasmanians and Nimbys of all persuasions.You call that a Plus ?

      Reply

    • Rick says:

      05:14pm | 15/04/11

      James hunter spelling mistakes aside…..........If Pauline even had 1% of your intellect she may be have been in with a chance…........however…......1% of nothing is…............................bugger all.

    • Knemon says:

      01:59pm | 15/04/11

      “A record 453,125 people voted Greens in NSW”

      To all those that think the Green vote has peaked….think again.

      The Green vote will keep rising as it will at the next federal election - admittedly at the cost of the ALP…The ALP are on a slippery slide to annihilation.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      02:21pm | 15/04/11

      What is the difference, they are one and the same party.

    • Knemon says:

      03:50pm | 15/04/11

      @ Ryan - What grade school are you completing - or should that be play school?

      Are the Liberals and Nationals one and the same? I assume they are, because without each other they are both kaput.

    • Ryan says:

      09:42pm | 15/04/11

      @Knemon: well clearly silly, that’s why its called the “coalition”. Unlike the deceptive nature of the socialist / communist left.

    • Polly Dee says:

      03:16pm | 15/04/11

      Is James Hunter serious?? “The Greens seem to want to support terrorists” Now, this really is delusional. What a joke!

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      05:34pm | 15/04/11

      There is a major flaw in Buckingham’s assertions, that being that Hanson hasn’t been stopped. Probably not yet in NSW, and definately not federally.

      I’ve been looking into the history of election challenges and the decisions of the Court of Disputed Returns. Whilst I would personally prefer Hanson to campaign for federal parliament, she still has an excellent chance to force a vote recount in NSW.

      Although, if media reports are correct (always a big “if”), she is focussing on the wrong part of the process to challenge. No doubt some appropriate legal advice will set her straight (although I have already sent her an email to make sure that she is aware of what I have written below).

      Media reports stated that she was upset with the randomised vote selection for preference assignment. While it is true that it is an outdated, unfair and inconsistent process, that is clearly open to abuse via selective sampling, the fact remains that it has been clearly codified in the NSW constitution.

      The randomised vote selection may even help Hanson once a recount has been ordered, but it can’t be used as a reason in itself to force a recount.

      But based on established court precedent and published principles, she has an excellent chance of forcing a recount based upon two sets of previously uncounted votes.

      The first set of uncounted pro-Hanson votes were found by a scrutineer hidden within a bunch of blank ballots. According to media reports, only about 20 of these votes were found, not enough to change the result in themselves, but enough to raise questions about corrupt elections staff and about how many other votes have received similar treatment or been “lost” altogether.

      The second set of uncounted pro-Hanson votes were those with a single “1” against her name. As Hanson’s name was below the line, where voters were asked to number at least 15 candidates, these votes were ruled invalid. I haven’t been able to determine exactly how many of these votes there were, apart from a vague “several thousand”, but in any case clearly enough to change the result if they had been counted as valid votes.

      “So what? The votes didn’t meet the guidelines so they shouldn’t be counted”, I can hear the anti-Hansonists saying already.

      Well, a layperson might initially think so, but we are talking about interpretations of the law, where almost anything is possible, even without legal precedent.

      And there is legal precedent. Lots of it, and it all favours Hanson. In 2008, the Federal Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, set out “the principles to be applied to the consideration of the admission or rejection of ballot papers”.

      These principles say that as long as the ballot paper has not been defaced and the intention of the voter is unmistakable, then “the question of formality should be resolved in the voter’s favour”.

      It seems pretty clear that a “1” against Hanson’s name is an intention to vote for her, regardless of whether the number is written above or below the line. Even the most activist left wing judge will have trouble denying that, (even if a lot of Punch poster will still try to deny it).

      Of course, I could be making this all up. Sorry, but no. Take a look for yourselves:

      http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality-guidelines-2010v2.pdf

      It’s another win/win for Hanson. She either wins the case for a recount, and almost certainly a seat in the NSW Legislative Council, or she wins more evidence of a biassed judiciary and unfair treatment from the power elites to take to the next federal election.

      Cue the outraged shrieks of despair from the extremist left…..............................

      smile

      Reply

    • Gerard says:

      06:56pm | 15/04/11

      Just playing devil’s advocate here, but surely a court can rule that the intention of voting for a particular candidate extends to ensuring that you lodge a valid vote in their favour?

    • Greg says:

      03:59am | 16/04/11

      The instructions on the ballot paper were fairly clear, but that’s irrelevent in a court of law.

      The legislation (NSW PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS ACT 1912 - SECT 129F) actually allows for ticks and crosses to be accepted as valid, even though the ballot instructions clearly state that only numbers should be used.

      More importantly, it states that a vote that is not correctly placed inside a group voting box can still be considered as valid if the voter’s intention is clear.

      There is heaps of legal precedent in favour of this interpretation. In the past cases they only had to point out that the ballot instructions discriminated against non-English speaking voters, and that minor voting errors should be ignored if the voting intentions were clear.

      Judges have also consistently ruled in favour of allowing the maximum number of votes to be counted as eligible, according to the principle of “parliaments should be directly elected by the people”.

      The high Court used this principle to overide federal electoral law just before the last federal election, when they ruled that the electoral roles had to remain open:

      http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2010/hca46-2010-12-15.pdf

      That decision was very “creative and novel”, whereas a court will need to discover a very “creative and novel” interpretation if they are to find against Hanson.

      Of course, since Hanson is involved, they could do just that. But it’s clear that if the situations were reversed, and the Greens lost by a small margin while having a large number of invalidated votes, then the courts would reverse the result in their favour.

      That’s what happens when judges are appointed, and have their career opportunities determined by Hanson’s political opponents.

      But if that happens, people will still see that she is being singled out for unfair treatment, and that will generate more sympathetic votes at the next federal election.

    • Daniel says:

      05:42pm | 15/04/11

      I have not read such a level headed piece on this site in a long while. Jeremy is very right. News Ltd and their masters wanted the Greens to preference the rotten ALP so they could use their usual line “A vote for Greens is a vote for Labor”. I see it all the time over on Piers Akerman. his blind followers use it all the time in their toxic attacks on Greens. As for Labor in NSW I really hope they are a spent force and never get another chance unless they really embrace some serious reforms and get back to their Whitlam roots.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      06:06pm | 15/04/11

      The ALP are a spent force if they don’t embrace some serious reforms and get back to their Billy Hughes roots.

    • bikinis on top says:

      07:54pm | 15/04/11

      The Greens have saved the Liberal Party and the Mass media at last.Hurrah!

      Reply

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      11:24am | 16/04/11

      If your arrogance and obvious disregard for facts and numbers is going to typify the way politics is going to be conducted in NSW, then what has changed from the ALP version Jeremy?  you gloat about Hanson’s lack of numerical support by comparison to the greens but you conveniently fail to mention how many green candidates it took to acheive your one eyed slant of how it really is . If being a patriot concerned with the way squeaky wheel minority groups get their slice of attention or how ethnic groups segregate themselves from the general populace living in virtual enclaves, or lazy bludgers happy to sit around getting pissed all day and doing drugs while the latest and greatest 50” Plasma nanny’s their offspring while they happilly and shamelessly swindle taxpayers day in day out,,,,,  puts me in the same basket with Hanson , Abbott, Gillard and quite a few million others SO BE IT. If you want a happy life in public, stick to the facts and leave the bullshit for piss trough conversation at your local.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed