Prev
Next

The Greens plan for Australia: A big Tasmania

Brendan Darcy

by Brendan Darcy

27 Aug 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Economics, Election 2010, Labor Party, Liberal Party, Politics, Tasmania, The Greens

68 comments

The Australian Greens is a political party that comes to wreck and to not build.

Those Greens all look alike to me

Their grand plan is to turn Australia, the fourteenth largest economy in the world into Tasmania writ large.

Modern Tasmania lives off the redistributionist largesse of Commonwealth subsidies and public service salaries. Two thirds of the island State is locked up in national parks and its population growth has been historically anaemic for many decades. Through the Hare-Clarke system, development and entrepreneurialism is gridlocked – a happy outcome if you are an advocate of zero population growth and genteel poverty.

Tasmanian Senator and Leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, to my mind, is a real deal deep-green greenie. His first priority is to lock up as much our natural resources and to change our consumerist habits into frugal permaculturists.

His worldview along with his most ardent followers is a mixture of Roussean primitivism and old fashion Puritanism.

On 21 August – election night, Bob Brown made a strange link between birth of a whale in the Derwent River with the Greens gaining the balance of power in the Senate.  This is weird totemistic comment just underlines their sentimentality about the natural order.

Hurricanes and cyclones: our wickedness brought them about; whale births: a sign from Gaia that she approves of the Greens.  This irrational utterance should have been up for widespread ridicule.

The Greens are also concerned about what we eat, where it comes from and how we commute. This political party are desperate to make us feel guilty about it and to regulate our behaviours; hence the Greens’ policies to levy junk food, ban GM foods, to roll out electric cars that no one wants and to introduce ‘traffic light’ food labelling. 

No political party is as interested in curbing our personal freedoms as the Australian Greens.

Bob Brown and his followers, however, do have their internal critics.

When you vote for the Greens you get two distinct political movements in one. Bob Brown’s and the dyed-in-the-wool lefties from Melbourne and Sydney. These dreamy revolutionaries are well rehearsed in the ‘marching through the institutions’ tactics of the eurocommunists.

For them, the Australian Greens is just another institution to trash for political advantage.

For instance, Adam Bandt, National Convenor of the Greens and Melbourne MP-elect, is on record as denigrating the Greens as a ‘bourgeois’ movement suitable for socialist envelopment. Lea Rhiannon, NSW Senator elect is also an unapologetic Marxist and former member of the CPA.

The danger of the Greens influencing national affairs includes cuts to our armed forces and isolationist disengagement in lieu of foreign aid welfarism – a policy they call ‘Australia as a Good Neighbour’.

It is well known Brown is worried about their rising influence and their capacity to interfere in its parliamentary bargaining.

The classic example is the Greens’ failure to substantially reduce old growth logging in 2002. On that occasion Senator Brown brokered a deal with John Howard to stop logging in Tasmania’s old growth forests for exchange for Telstra’s privatisation. 

The deal would have achieved most of what the Tasmanian Greens were originally established to achieve; then it swiftly vetoed by the socialist purists of the Greens’ National Council who forced Brown to give up his life long ambitions for Tasmanian environmental movement.

If halting logging in Tasmania’s ancient forests is the yardstick by which one measures the effectiveness of an environmental political party, it abjectly failed less than ten years ago.

The electorate knows what is buying when it votes for the major parties. Their respective platforms are mercilessly blowtorched by a skeptical media.

That scrutiny melts away, however, when it comes to scrutinising the Greens’ platform.

Everyone should know the Greens want to close down zoos and increase the corporate and personal tax rates. Everyone should know they want to take State aid money from non-government schools, close down our mainstream immigration program and aim to reintroduce death duties. 

That these policies are not widely known reflects poorly on contemporary journalism.

No longer an environmentalist movement, the Australian Greens is a political vehicle for ambitious wreckers.

The most effective tools of Green politics include middle class angst and hyperbolic catastrophism. The wealthiest, most educated parts of our inner city suburbs are especially vulnerable to this contemporary campaign of guilt-ridden millenarianism – exactly where the Greens’ polled best in 2010.

I am shocked by how many Liberals and Labor campaigners are too afraid to attack the wrecking ball Greens, as if embarrassed by their own perceived lack of reverence for the natural world. 

The truth is both the Labor and Liberal Parties have their own long positive narratives about environmental protection.

Think of the role Labor played in stopping the Franklin River dam and the Antarctic Treaty to halt the exploitation of its natural resources.

For the Liberals, Malcolm Fraser stopped sand mining on Fraser Island as well as whaling; Howard increased the marine protection areas of the Great Barrier Reef from 5 to 33 per cent; and Kennett stopped the destructive practice of scallop dredging in Victoria.

I say to Labor and Liberal supporters: the Greens have no right to bully you! Stop apologising!

The Greens take the approach the environment is and ought to be pristine, with next to no human engagement with it. 

Real policy wonks know environmental management is about balance, off-sets and evidence based science, not to the exclusion of human interaction, for material, recreational and health benefits. Real policy wonks don’t pretend there are no losers. Real policy wonks don’t promise 100 per cent renewable energy.

Economic management and national security are at the core of public expectations for our mainstream political parties.  The parties that can manage our economy and our security concerns are not surprisingly the best to manage our environmental assets.

The Greens fail every commonsense test.

Preferencing the Greens for tactical advantage, as happened on 21 August, is starting to resemble mutually assured destruction in which neither major party gains strategic advantage.

No longer an environmentalist movement, the Australian Greens is a political vehicle for ambitious wreckers.

As a first step, Australians need to remind themselves the Greens are just politicians and should be treated accordingly.

Most commented

68 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Peter says:

      06:14am | 27/08/10

      Sadly, this expose will do nothing to alter the current impasse and by the next election will have been forgotten.
      There are many more areas of the Greens policy which should start alarm bells ringing in society, but which, unfortunately, are well camouflaged.
      The Greens will not accept that the Utopian Communist model has been rejected and are still trying to introduce it under the guise of Environmentalism.
      Their most fervent disciples are the pseudo intellectuals and the brainwashed young with little or no life experience.
      May God help us all.

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      08:04am | 27/08/10

      Totally agree Peter and what is so scary is your second last sentence.

      The Greens always sound so convincing because they aren’t scrutinized for costing, implementation and accountibility.

      How many more elections before the dumb dumber voters realize????????

    • Roja says:

      09:12am | 27/08/10

      @ Peter - The Greens are a long way from holding power, at the moment they have influence not power.  What they have done with that influence historically obviously spoke to a very respectable percentage of the population. 

      As for what a parties creed is and what they will actually do to win votes are now massively disparate, just look at labor (centrist since 2007) and liberal (suffering from scattered socialist showers).  In fact the appalling performance of both major parties is exactly what makes the Greens look good right now, they were so busy attacking each other in this election they didn’t have time to attack the greens.

      @Rosie - For the record the Greens asked to submit their policies to treasury for costing, however labor refused.  As a conservative I would be very careful throwing stones about a lack of accountability.

    • John Goslino says:

      10:18am | 27/08/10

      Some people like Brendan Darcy get very emotional about things they don’t agree with, feel may upset the status quo or just don’t (or wish to) understand.  Some just don’t like the idea of a third force in politics, much easier to comment a blues v reds (maroon?) match.  The Greens have obviously not proven themselves as a Governing party so no doubt many of us like me who voted for them will want to see much more evidence of their ability to make a positive difference and establish worthwhile policies. They have good intents in many areas, including with respect to sustainable communities and blocking Labor’s internet filter, and are in line with both major parties in areas like paid parental leave.  In the climate they operate in it will be difficult to get away with radicalism as the scaremongering suggests - they’d need to display a balanced and negotiated approach.  For sure they received some protest/disaffected votes, but they also won because their platform (if simpler) seems clearer (with less pork-barrelling) than that of others, so you know what you are voting for, and they certainly appear less of a machine-run organisation.  Like the independents, let’s consider the upside of what the Greens could offer and do, rather than harp on the negatives.

    • acotrel says:

      09:30am | 28/08/10

      Risk must be managed appropriately in any situation.  There are usually four areas which must be balanced - quality, safety, environment, security.  The first area, quality is of prime importance .  If we don’t have quality of life, we have nothing.  Environmental issues must be balanced with other needs.  They are important but shouldn’t take precedence to the exclusion of other considerations. It’s said ‘a little knowledge is dangerous’, and that’s what I think a lot of greenies have.  It’s about ideology, not science!

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      04:13pm | 28/08/10

      @Peter:  ... and I wonder whether a vote for the Greens is a vote for Communism too?  These people are frightening.  That photo gave me the creeps - I won’t sleep again! LOL

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      06:27am | 27/08/10

      It’d be nice if for once, a member of the fourth estate would actually ask a green to ellaborate when they say “switch to 100% renewables”, or my favourite “the green economy/green jobs”.

      These things are often heard from the Greens, yet I’ve not heard anyone challenged on this BS. Imagine Christine Milne trying to explain in that monotone drawl something as complocated (and unrealistic) as a “green economy”... I’d pay to watch that!

      Reply

    • Craig Lambie says:

      09:27am | 27/08/10

      Take a look at beyond zero emissions plan for 100% renewable stationary power by 2020.  Fully costed and within or budget.  All the political parties are aware it is possible, it is just the political will to go behind some very large and powerful companies who stand to lose large future income if we make these changes. Just look to China, they are forcing companies to shut down if they haven’t met the strict requirements.

    • Helen says:

      09:32am | 27/08/10

      If you want to patronise Green policicians on their level of education, you had better learn to spell words like “complicated” and “elaborate” first, otherwise your criticisms may just look silly.
      In what way would - to take one example - ramping up research, development, design and manufacture of (for instance) solar energy units / plants, NOT create jobs? they’re just different jobs.
      The people of the nineteenth century could never have predicted the life we live today, but we don’t find it so fearful. Change and adaptation are good things.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:49am | 27/08/10

      @ Craig, that 2020 100% renewable power has more holes than a flyscreen. Don’t ignorantly bring it up. It is a vision, with a hypothesised plan and timeframe but in no ways practical.

      1. The technology it proposes does not even exist yet. Part of the plan is to develop and scale up technolgy 10 fold. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that is a giant leap in assumptions to make.

      2. The plan includes retrofitting all buildings and 100% electric vehicles. Who exactly is going to pay for this. The cost to the consumer has never been factored in.

      The idea is good, particularly to have something put up to scrutiny rather than chanting “renewables” but it definately not within budget (whos budget is that exactly anyway) and it is definatley not fully costed.

      @ Helen, Spelling mistakes and typos are two diferent things and your self-indulgent sense of superiority looks rather thin when you spell “policicians” and the “t” and “c” are a fair distance apart on the keyboard.

    • The Badger says:

      11:00am | 27/08/10

      @ Adam Diver
      I see why you have jumped to defend poor spelling.
      take these words you typed.

      hypothesised
      timeframe
      technolgy
      definately
      whos
      definatley
      diferent

    • Kass says:

      01:43pm | 27/08/10

      Badger,
      Adam Diver wasn’t criticising spelling; he was pointing out that pretentious twats criticise spelling rather than argument. And there’s no greater twat than the one who wrongly criticises correct spelling.
      So, how do YOU spell “hypothesised”, Einstein?
      BTW - “timeframe” is an increasingly acceptable alternative to “time frame”, even used by the ABC.

    • Barry says:

      02:09pm | 27/08/10

      Adam Diver

      You hit the nail on the head,

      itsvisionary.

      Dont get me wrong I would like a 100% totally renewable energy sector.

      But how to you cost a vison??? My guess is with alot of zeros

      My problem is with the Greens is they never have to defend anything because they wont be in government. During the Qld election they proposed a new rail system for the whole of Brisbane including a under ground rail system. Currently in Brisbane it will cost around 750- 900 million a km for a tunnel. The Greens plan would cost around 40 -50 B
      I would love Treasury to cost some of the Green policies.

    • Gregg says:

      03:44pm | 27/08/10

      Yes Craig,
      as Adam has indicated that zero emissions plan may look good on paper but the very first thing you need to consider is that the only attempted 24/7 solar tower plant was back in the late nineties, one of a whopping 10 MW capacity that ran for just three years.
      There is currently another under construction in Spain, all of 17 MW and if the theory was so good, do you not think they would already be building the 217 MW versions that the zero plan refers to.
      They’re not and the main emphasis for solar power is with improved PV design and a number of power plants are being constructed but sun goes down and so does your power other than if charging batteries with a home unit.

      The second glaring fallacy with the concept is having back up boilers for all those cloudy days and you know how they plan to fuel those?
      Biofuel! and so go and have a look at a 200MW generating unit and see how big a coal fired boiler you need and then ask yourself where is all this Biofuel going to come from out in the drier regions where it is proposed to have the solar plants because of more sunny weather.
      The next problem is the transmission losses and why you’ll always find base load power stations as close to population and/or industry centres as possible.
      There have been a couple of articles during the course of the election re the zero mob attempting to sell the concept and then even supporters acknowledging the report lacked funding and thus not all bases covered.
      The thinking that all that could be done by 2020 is a joke but what will not be a joke is that someone on the East coast needs to get behind new either coal or nuclear power station planning so as either pre or post 2020 there will not be major power shortages occurring.
      Have a look at just how many coal fired and nuclear power stations China is constructing.

    • Chris says:

      06:56am | 27/08/10

      Written, spoken and authorised by A. Robb, Liberal Party, Canberra.

      Reply

    • planigale says:

      07:33am | 27/08/10

      ha ha!
      got that right chris
      looks like the extreme right is aiming for another poll

    • MarK says:

      09:16am | 27/08/10

      There would be more Labor guys endorsing this than Liberals after last Saturday. Ask Albanese if he loves the Greens. Actually scrub that - he will “retire” like Tanner did - the writing is on the wall.

    • Joe S says:

      09:17am | 27/08/10

      extreme right? Only if you look at the world through red tinted glasses! down with capitalism! down with people!

    • Super D says:

      08:15am | 27/08/10

      I welcome the rise of the Greens.  These closet socialists have escaped scrutiny for far too long.  I’d actually like to see them run tasmania for a decade or so.  I mean it will suck for Tasmania but at least the Greens will then have to own actual outcomes rather than simply pontificate from the fringes.

      Reply

    • Shane says:

      09:53am | 27/08/10

      Good comments, it will definitely be sad to see the results if they ever got to actually running anything. I was already considering leaving Tasmania but with the Greens in control it would be a definite.

    • Hamish says:

      10:34am | 27/08/10

      Spot on, Super D. It is their popularity which will ultimately seal their doom. The Watermelons have managed to get by in the past trading on the politics of naivety and apathy. It is unlikely they will be able to do so in future.

      Watermelon voters fall into three categories. There are the predominantly young, politically disengaged and naive group. The politically engaged middle-class hand-wringers (who are mostly academics, bureaucrats, lawyers and retirees) who yearn for meaning and inhabit a fantasy word. And the hardcore pseaudo marxist anti-industrialists like Rhiannon. The Victorian ETU (easily the most Marxist Union in Australia) gave their political funds (I think about $300K) to The Greens. 

      The ALP and the Coalition have far more in common with each other than the ALP has with The Greens.

    • eeldraw says:

      12:36pm | 27/08/10

      @Hamish
      *insert political party here* have managed to get by in the past trading on the politics of naivety and apathy.

      That could be said to be true for the major parties, but to claim that is true for the Greens is not just a stretch of the imagination. It directly contradicts your claims in your second paragraph that “watermelon voters” include either the “politically engaged middle-class hand-wringers (who are mostly academics, bureaucrats, lawyers and retirees)” or the “hardcore pseaudo marxist anti-industrialists”.

      Either they are apathetic or they are engaged. Either they are naive or educated and experienced. You can’t have it both ways.

    • Hamish says:

      12:58pm | 27/08/10

      You’re right eeldraw, I wasn’t very clear. The middle-class hand-wringers have always voted Labor, but the ALP has failed to engage with them in this election. The ALP’s main problem was that the only thing they could really hang their hat on was the WorkChoices scare campaign and obviously The Greens weren’t going to bring back WorkChoices. I live in the Melbourne electorate and Adam Bandt’s main slogan in his letters was ‘disappointed with Labor but don’t want to vote for Tony Abbott.’ So, he was actively encouraging a protest vote against the ALP.

      The predominantly young and naive group would have generally voted for Kevin 07 in the previous election as he managed to inspire them with broad platitudes like ‘new leadership focused on the future’. This election the ALP failed to inspire the naive, so they voted Green.

      Obviously the Rhiannon style pseudo Marxists and the old-school hippie voters (who I forgot to include) always vote Green anyway. Their success in coverting the above two groups increased their primary vote by, what was it, almost 75%? It also reduced the ALP primary vote to pretty much the lowest it’s been in my lifetime.

    • AlexVV says:

      08:34am | 27/08/10

      Alas this article shows how deep in the political elitist commentariat is the fear of the public actually standing up and taking an interest in making Australia a better place.

      You’re sounding like Landeryou in this article: how about stopping the shrillness and actually examine the Greens policies?

      Reply

    • Ads says:

      10:55am | 27/08/10

      The public “standing up” amounted to 11% of the vote. 

      Just about 3 million votes short of having a mandate.

      Examining their policies:
      - close down zoos
      - increase the corporate and personal tax rates
      - take State aid money from non-government schools
      - close down our mainstream immigration program
      - reintroduce death duties. 

      Its there if you look.  Or do we need to go into their completely unfunded $4.3b dental plan? Closing down the coal industry?  Shutting down 85% of electricity generation?

      The loony list goes on.  Give them the balance of power and the scrutiny that comes with it.  They will either get real, or be gone faster than you can say democrat

    • Hamish says:

      11:19am | 27/08/10

      These are The Greens policies…

      1. Transition to a low carbon economy whilst simultaneously increasing social welfare and associated public sector spending.

      2. Maintain an ‘ecologically sustainable’ population whilst simultaneously maintaining/increasing immigration levels.

      To think these policies are workable you need to be either:

      1. Naive.

      2. Living in a fantasy world.

      I like their drug policy, but they need to go for legalisation not decriminalisation.

      They’re really just a bunch of idealistic activists playing politician.

    • Jeremy says:

      08:38am | 27/08/10

      Apparently the Liberals think that only hard rightwingers have a right to be heard in parliament.

      I expect their hysterical attacks on the Greens to become more and more rabid, and less and less connected with reality, if we have to go back to the polls.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      09:23am | 27/08/10

      Thanks for proving the point Brendan was making.

      Let us use any tactic to divert attention from what the Greens actually stand for….that is if they know themselves.

    • notagreen says:

      04:54pm | 27/08/10

      Go back to your own blog Walter.

    • Delphic Oracle. says:

      08:38am | 27/08/10

      I’d rather a Green than a Blue from the big end of town.  In fact, I’d like a technicolour mix who could actually discuss serious objectives and think of Australia, not just their own small minded ideas.  The Independents and Greens could change the kindergarten tactics of the two parties for the better.  You don’t have to agree with everything the Greens stand for but accept that Australian politics have to change and they could be the catylist.

      Reply

    • Front Row says:

      05:41pm | 27/08/10

      Why do Australian politics have to change?
      We have low unemployment, we have a trade surplus, we have a public health system that, for all its faults, is miles ahead of the UK and US, we have free education, we have high literacy, we have a good level of home ownership, we have not had a civil war in more than 250 years, we change governments and nobody gets shot, what’s not to like?
      Our only drawback is our nation’s fast-developing growth industry of well-fed, middle-aged whingers.

    • The Badger says:

      08:43am | 27/08/10

      Conservatives to the right
      Greens to the left
      Labor in the centre.

      Someone has to balance out the greed and nepotism of the Conservatives.

      I am not young enough to know everything.
      Oscar Wilde

      Reply

    • NT Woman says:

      08:51am | 27/08/10

      Yes,  I say deport all greens to Tasmania where they can run a real life case study of their sandal wearing bycicle riding tofu eating wealth sharing policies - this also means they have to generate the money to pay for them too - after a period of time, rest of Aus can hold a referendum on whether we want them back, or force them to stay on the Green Isle!.

      Reply

    • Louisa says:

      09:11am | 27/08/10

      NT - they could also send all of the illegal immigrants to Tassie as well.

    • Shane says:

      09:58am | 27/08/10

      Hang on a second, if it’s not bad enough that you want to make us (Tasmania) a test case for the Greens, you now want to load us with illegal immigrants as well. I’ll collect my wife, pick up the children and we’ll be on the next flight out of here! ha ha

    • Jess says:

      10:47am | 27/08/10

      Don’t know about anyone else, but I will take “illegal immigrants” and “greens” over nufties like NT Woman and Shane.
      To Shane, I suspect those around you would very pleased you’re taking your wife and kids and getting on a plane - head to America, I suspect you’ll fit right in there. Just don’t come near me.

    • DougB says:

      01:39pm | 27/08/10

      @Shane. just make sure you come across Bass Strait on a leaky fishing boat, Shane, and you will get free accomodation, money, incentives, training and an offer to bring all your relatives in on a plane at our expense.

    • Greens the Wreckers. says:

      09:20am | 27/08/10

      Tasmania, one of the most beautiful places in the world; plentiful water (yet a costly, expensive, mismanaged new “water authority” just invented causing public backlash), two cold months and 10 comfortably enjoyable. A wonderful place to live and raise children, first class University of Tasmania, pork-barrelled roads in North with Southern roads no better than country ditches. Tasmania - producing some of the best minds in the world, yet wracked with controversies and government enabled failure.  WORST, the wellspring of Bob Brown and his green troublemakers and ferals.  A parliament where two of Bob Brown’s Greens demanded Cabinet posts after Labor’s interfering, backroom organiser Graham Richardson (a history well worth mature scrutiny) engineered Labor’s reinstatement after David Bartlett deceived voters “no deal with the devil” Greens, so he laughs in faces when reminded he jumped at a self-serving deal with his Green devils.
      Tasmania never achieved its true potential with Greens stopping everything.
      Federally minority Greens (90% didn’t vote for them) think they are entitled to a ministry.  How very, very Graham Richardson,  Australia’s unelected wishful controller of 22 million people.
      This cunning Green-controlling-Labor mob are inebriated with power and they don’t want to simply manage our economy, they want to social engineer our population.
      Victorian Greens know the exact mega wattage consumed by the MCG’s expansive night-lighting and it’s only a matter of time before night-sport is targeted by the Greens.  They won’t stop at telling domestic users to pay more, use less while shutting a blind eye to the MCG, Etihad and all the others. That would not be Green truth.  The Victorian economy reaps huge economic rewards from their patronage of night -lit entertainment.
      Just wait.  Mainland Australia would be a carbon copy of Tasmania.  You heard of Whelan the Wreckers.  Well Greens the Wreckers have been waiting around for years, wrecking Tasmania and those easily fooled and who don’t study their manifesto do the majority of us a disservice.
      One of their most questionable, revealing and worrisome policies isadvocating the vote for 16 yr. old adolescents - far too young, impressionable and life-inexperienced to feel beholden to political influence.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      10:16am | 27/08/10

      [Just wait.  Mainland Australia would be a carbon copy of Tasmania.]

      Hmm, bit of a freudian slip there, considering the wonderful role of oldgrowth forests in capturing and storing *carbon*, and the terrible increase that would occur in our *carbon* emissions if it was all woodchipped. Carbon copy indeed!

    • Tom R says:

      10:15am | 27/08/10

      Yes, Brendan, Tassie should replace the Hare-Clark (note correct spelling) with single-member electorates, which will Guarantee Strong Majority Government, not beholden to obscure independent candidates with extravagant demands and extremist agendas. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone’s been away snorkelling since last Friday, yes?

      As for Tasmania being addicted to the federal funding teat, this is a result of its being over-represented in the Commonwealth Parliament. Equal Senate seats per State was entrenched in our - what’s that phrase so beloved of Peter Reith again? - “Strong Constitution” back in 1900 and is a separate issue from PR voting for the Senate (as it was for the first 47 years of our history; indeed, Tasmania’s own upper house shows how much worse regional vote-weighting can be WITHOUT PR to balance it). Guaranteeing Tasmania a minimum 5 MHRs regardless of population didn’t help either. Electing those 5 MHRs from 5 separate electorates means that when the State swings to whichever party promises it more money, you get a 5-0 clean sweep (eg, most elections since 1983).

      Finally… can The Punch please switch to showing contributors’ credentials on the same page as their op-ed title, rather than a mouse-click away? Before wasting 10 irrecoverable minutes of my life reading what I assumed would be an unbiased analysis of the issues, it would be nice to have some warning that I’m just reading a dummy-spit by a shill for one party or another. Thanks

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      10:28am | 27/08/10

      My daughter lives and works in Tasmania loves the place with a passion ,but I dare not get her started on the politics of the place ,she just goes berserk.
      She worked on the inside of that state government and was appalled at the antics ,needles to say she finally left.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      10:59am | 27/08/10

      A friend of mine started work for the Tasmania state government at a senior level and she tears her hair out with the time wasting and over-staffing.

      Government employment is not a job in Tasmania, it’s a lifestyle choice.

    • Steve says:

      10:29am | 27/08/10

      Gaia will be unhappy!

      Gaia will tell us how we must change through her chosen voices, the Greens

      Reply

    • Heather says:

      10:52am | 27/08/10

      I agree with this article. I am an environmental scientist, and a pragmatist; and no, this is not an oxymoron. However, it is almost anathema to criticise the Greens, particularly in academia and inner city lefty circles. One would assume academics would bring to bear some of their supposed critical objectivity on to the Greens, instead of blindly accepting them as the saviours of the known universe. Yeah, sure. Back in the distant past, when I was naive and less cynical, I also thought environmentalism was the way of the future. However, the vast majority of environmentalists I have met are nothing better than proselytizing cult members, and none too bright, no matter how many degrees they have. Moreover, many of them are complete hypocrites, blithely gallivanting around the world on jet aircraft, which can ONLY be propelled by highly refined petroleum. And those who profess minimalist living are utterly dumb; do they genuinely think that people, accustomed to modern standards of living, are going to go back to some luddite existence, for example, using smelly composting toilets? For example, I once had the tedious experience of listening to some such new age hippy, who, with the usual lack of any sense of humour common to these, and to feminists, blithely declared that women should not use tampons because they were bad for the environment, and should instead use reusable cloth pads. Euuuw. Seriously, can you imagine *any* modern woman doing that?

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      01:49pm | 27/08/10

      Thanks for that Heather. Will now await the barrage or criticism toward your comment and your qualifications etc being called into question.

      Noone openly criticises the Greens on what they sprout out in terms of the environment. It is percieved to be the gospel truth and people blindly follow. I honestly think that the Greens have found modern religion. They blast the practices of the church yet at the same time use fear mongering, regular gatherings, exaggerated truths, fund raising drives to spread their message and Senators become worshiped. Concept sounds a little familiar. Tasmania becoming their own “Vatican City” would be an intersting experiment.

      I think someone would crack out the “coolade” in no time.

      I believe people agree with minor aspects of the Green’s environmental policies (myself included) but fail to idenify just how extreme their ideas go. Throwing your weight behind political extremists is not the way to progress the issues, it will cause further division and ultimately hinder positive development.

    • Danielle G says:

      03:34pm | 27/08/10

      You can get washable reusable tampons now you realise? If people want the product the market provides someone to make it. I buy them and MCNs as well (modern cloth nappies) for our babies.

      More and more “middle class hand wringers” see Greens as the only left wing alternative to an increasing right wing dominated Labor party, and the kind of socialist policies we want are in line with what the rest of the world wants and not the slippery slope to communism type crybaby alarmism we’re seeing from right wing diehards.

      Environmentally sustainable resource use and production methods do nothing more than ensure those resources will be still be around to sustain future generations and those of us with an eye to the future realise that if we DON’T start managing our resources better it will lead to a much swifter demise for capitalism as required resources begin to be priced out of the reach of normal people and small business.

      We’ll save your arses while you’re off crying about reds under the bed mate don’t fret.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:33pm | 27/08/10

      Danielle you appear to have commited to the lifestyle - you are in the minority. You also prove my point exactly. Your comments are more “alarmist” than any and we are all supposed to hush now the greens have spoken.

      I air on the side of conservatism yes, but I am not (nor are most people who disagree with you for that matter) an alarmist. I will admit, I am concerned by the amount of people who accept notions presented by the greens and the hypocracy that they spew - but gullability is not something that people generally get over quickly. I am not judging you, I am just disagreeing with you and advising that you are out of touch with the real problems in this country. 

      I am not religious, I am not gay, I am not a citysider, boat people and asylum seekers and biodegradable takeway coffee cups are not a major concern for me. Each to their own, I don’t judge people for their life choices and I respect people who work hard and don’t try to ram their chosen lifestyle down my throat.

      I am all for conservation. I use minimal electricity, reuse, recyle all the rest. I don’t see why I should have to drop $10k to install solar power so that I can alleviate the peak in consumption allowing other people to run their airconditioner all summer and not feel the financial pinch. People are spoilt and will not compromise their lifestyle - the Greens think the solution is to tax tax tax. Those people who run their aricon - they can afford the tax. 

      People who drive home in their Prius to an oversized house with four plasmas and vote Green make me angry. It is these people who are doing the damage and it these people that the current Green team are courting. Me thinks it is only going to end badly for all of us.

    • Don says:

      10:56am | 27/08/10

      The Greens are in my opinion a bunch of wanks. Not much you say.

      BUT, on an Amercian talk show , I almost felt sorry for the Green leader who was being ripped to shreds by the host for being such liars.

      The Green fellow said they had to ” exgarerate (make bigger) the damage so the media and pubic would take notice “.. They lie, folks and too many take it as truth.

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      11:25am | 27/08/10

      Having lived in Tasmania in the early 70’s I can say with some authority that it has been a Green state forever - in all senses of the word…even when logging was prevalent.
      I think the way to make it ‘‘grow up’’ is to send some of the boat people down there. It is the most ‘‘Anglo’’ state and seems to escape most of the mainland (as they call us) problems and lives in its own fantasyland.

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      11:32am | 27/08/10

      I say this - If you are 20 and not a socialist then you do not have a soul. If you are 40 and still a socialist then you do not have a brain.

      Reply

    • Boomgarden says:

      11:41am | 27/08/10

      Without radical views, the centre of politics will never move.
      Most people voting for The Greens aren’t expecting them to form government, but with our fantastic preferential voting system, voters can use their vote to show support for ‘issue parties’ while ultimately giving their vote to a major party of their choice.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:53am | 27/08/10

      Hmm… Let’s see…overcrowded in mainland cities, over priced property, ethnic enclaves, high crime rates, water shortages, high immigration rates, dysfunctional federal politics. Here’s hoping that Tasmania remains the same so I can retire there…..Keep up the good work Greens…..(I won’t mention the fact that this entire article is a smear job by a Liberal flunky and a waste of reading time)

      Reply

    • Cliff Hanger says:

      03:01pm | 27/08/10

      Shane—thank you for a non political blog,and a sensible one at that!

    • David says:

      12:26pm | 27/08/10

      If you want to know what the Greens actual policy positions are then visit their website and click on policies - they’re all there written out, all the time (not like the two major parties which only seem to make policy positions available during elections). Here I’ll even give you the URL to save you the time: http://greens.org.au/policies

      I’m not a member of the Greens or particularly emotionally affiliated but this piece is pretty vitriolic and heavy on the extrapolation of (usually uncited) statements or single eposiodes of policy negotiation to a future of Green dominance (something I don’t even think will ever happen).

      The reason the Greens won such a swing this election was because the two major parties sold themselves terribly. They spent most of their time attacking each other and almost no time building themselves up and defending their positions. Furthermore, on the Green’s strongest issue, climate change, both the major parties did their very best to do as little as possible about the problem in their own special way.

      Perhaps if the parties bent to the public and not expecting the public to bend to them we might have avoided this whole debacle of an election result.

      Reply

    • Bryan says:

      12:27pm | 27/08/10

      Your article has hit the nail on the head not once but several times. It has also put into perspective just how little time is spent by the media to question and investigate the underlying objectives and beliefs of the Greens and just how it will effect normal life for most Australians.

      For the Greens, normal life and the changes that all Australians should (and will) make is quite different to what most Australians would ever expect. What we are seeing now is a entrée to what will become an ongoing agenda of Green ideas. It will ultimately effect businesses and industry to appoint that the Greens would approve of anyways. Tasmania is the classic example of the Green experiment. Without economic assistance from the rest of Australia it would find itself an economic and employment basket case.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      12:29pm | 27/08/10

      Spot on, Mr. Darcy.
      The Greens come to us with their slippers, pipe and cocker spaniel.
      Wrong time, wrong place, wrong everything.
      But I do believe, the middle classes ladies did vote for them, and they have now contributed something to civilization more important than babies.

      Reply

    • William Bowe says:

      03:19pm | 27/08/10

      Tasmania had 12 unbroken years of majority government from 1998 to 2010, and here’s Brendan Darcy trying to impute every one of the state’s woes to a Labor-Greens alliance that has been in place for four whole months.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      09:30pm | 27/08/10

      If I had known that the Greens had a policy to reduce mainstream immigration rates I would have voted for them.

      Reply

    • Eric Ireland says:

      03:29pm | 28/08/10

      The Greens do not have a policy to reduce immigration rates. Their policy is to increase the number of places for refugees, and to lower the intake the other immigrants, so that the overall immigration rate remains about the same.

    • Lucy says:

      01:38am | 28/08/10

      I can’t believe what rubbish this article is.  Tasmania’s been undergoing somewhat of a renaissance of late. In the past it’s suffered significant economic strife, particularly in the 1980s (which you can’t blame on the Greens) however in the last decade in particular, it’s experienced significant growth.  Strange then that this economic growth coincides with the growing local support for the Greens and alternative political leaders to the two major parties. 

      Tasmanian food and wine are synonymous with quality and innovation; people visit the state to experience the amazing national parks you sneer at; the state has more artists per capita than any other state; and guess what - you can actually still afford to buy a house in the state’s capital, which is more than you could say for any other capital city. 

      Despite your stats, in the last census it showed that more people of my gen (Y) were entering Tasmania, than leaving; while Sydney’s experiencing the opposite problem.

      Reply

    • KM says:

      09:19am | 28/08/10

      The greens believe that the electricity required to turn a turbine, to create electricity
      Will make more electricity and cost less then the cost of the electricity to turn it.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      07:11pm | 28/08/10

      Um, that’s specific,(and true), and leads to an interesting conundrum.
      More details, please.

    • yofussn says:

      02:38pm | 28/08/10

      If we had balls we would be burning our own coal & coal seam gas & have more than enough cheap electricity to last for another hundred years or more, but as we become so environmentally self righteous we dig er up & ship er off to the northern hemisphere where it will be a great addittion to where the main problem lies, very logical not.  After maybe just another 10 years or so governments might pull the finger out & start coming out & up with feasable, viable, totally non polluteing means of base load renewable self sustainig unlimited power generating technologies such as wave & tidal where incidentally our backward Tasmania may prove to be best placed to take advantage of !

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      02:52pm | 28/08/10

      Looking at the photo of Bob Brown and Adam Bandt, I think there are 2 Adams. The 2nd Adam is on Bobs right, standing on a box.
      2 Julias and 2 Adams could be a bit scarey.

      Reply

    • Broggly says:

      09:21pm | 28/08/10

      Close down zoos? The policy is in fact to ensure the importation of animals for zoos occurs only when it aids conservation efforts.  That’s a fairly reasonable policy, we shouldn’t be fragmenting the gene pools of species with small populations. Presumably species with more resilient populations would be easily imported since we’d be able to import enough for a breeding program.

      Whatever money would be taken from private schools would go to public schools. I’m not an educational funding wonk, but it seems that the government has a greater responsibility to public schools than it does to private schools.

      I have no idea where that thing about shutting down immigration comes in. There is a thing about trying to improve skills training here in Australia rather than relying on migrants, but cutting skilled migration by ending skills shortages isn’t so bad.

      As for the estate tax, with an exemption on family homes, family farms and small businesses it’s only going to be a concern to the next James Packer.

      I haven’t read the text of Bob Brown’s speech, but it seems like nothing more than a little bit of poetic license (that, or potentially a reference to some successful environmental policy in the Derwent river). What next, will you say Chifley thought he was Balthazar or Jay Gatsby because he was alway running after bright lights in the sky?

      By the way, love your use of Stalinist show-trial rhetoric as you attack the Greens for being hyperbolic communists.

      Reply

    • cam says:

      02:58am | 31/08/10

      Look, the reality is the Greens took a higher vote because a larger percentage of people than normal disliked the two major parties. I applaud the increased scrutiny that the Greens will now command by the public and the media. To be honest, some of their policies are really questionable and sometimes Brown himself has trouble explaining them and tends to meander off into other topics when speaking. With a greater responsibility in the parliament comes a greater scrutiny and accountability about their policies and the way they vote in the senate, something the Greens have got away with over the last 10 years. I’m also willing to bet that as this scrutiny and media increases, Bob Brown will not be the leader of the Greens in 12 months.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 23 May 13 11:07PM

@TheStalwart an analyst in Sydney said it was a "sad day" http://t.co/vh4Yu4OgDD. I think he was just exhausted and gave up analyzing

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 23 May 13 10:43PM

@CatherineDeveny @sydwritersfest A wobble

Paul Colgan

Colgo 23 May 13 10:38PM

RT @NASA: Amazing views from the International Space Station of Pavlof Volcano erupting in Alaska. http://t.co/vqBkkiOful

Paul Colgan

Colgo 23 May 13 10:30PM

US Google Doodle features a girl's touching depiction of her father's return from Iraq http://t.co/4LiRFOntTY

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter