The world according to Barnaby Joyce

Nick says:

07:29am | 05/06/09

Mr. Coalition writes about how Labor are lucky to have the Greens ‘on their side’?

Not at all like providing a substantial portion of the rural Right to shore up the Libs, is it now Barnaby…

Darren says:

08:06am | 05/06/09

The Nats scared us off supporting grandstanding NeoLiberal antidemocratic policy while leaving us in the bush with Bgrade 1990 telecommunications. Focus Mr Joyce. But break the duopoly!

stella says:

09:38am | 05/06/09

As a leftie, I listen to what you have to say Barnaby, cos its normally interesting and different.  There are too many actual policy ideas in this piece, that were worth their own solid argument that you did not give justice to.  Bringing the Greens into it just makes you look like Bill Heffernan.  Stick to the ideas.

adam jones says:

09:54am | 05/06/09

Hi Barnaby,

Who do you think you represent,and what is your basis for this artilce.
Oz is facing extreme challenges cos of the derelict state the country was left in by YOUR coalition parties
If anything barnyard you should be asking for forgiveness and promising to give up the banjo and get on with being a senator not a negator.

DBD says:

11:02am | 05/06/09

“The Right has only political commentators to ventilate right issues. They do not have a political party like the Left has the Greens.”

You did though, until they “imploded and disappeared into history”, in part because the issues the Right chose to"ventilate” were racist, ugly and not actually representitive of mainstream Australia.

You also have the Nationals and Family First, so stop whining.

Chade says:

11:19am | 05/06/09

The major parties are in the centre? You what?

This article sounds like a whinge about the Greens’ right to exist. Funny, I didn’t think we were in the business of denying a party political legitimacy just because we didn’t like their policies…

Jacob Zanoni says:

11:22am | 05/06/09

Apparently the world is a confused and muddled place with many disjointed tangents.

I did enjoy the part where Barnaby mentioned that two market players with 80% of the share is not a market.  Apparently one market player with 100% of the share is acceptable, considering that Barnaby was a vocal proponent of keeping the monopoly privilege the Australian Wheat Board had on wheat exports.

Such a shame that that an essay that started by asking some pertinent questions on philosophy and political party’s, ended up saying very little at all on the subject.

joe2 says:

11:58am | 05/06/09

“The Right has only political commentators to ventilate right issues.”

Yes, true, Barnaby. Do you think that monopoly should be broken down, as well?

John says:

12:15pm | 05/06/09

Two words: Barnaby Rubble

iansand says:

12:26pm | 05/06/09

Barnaby is recycling his Year 8 economics assignments again.

Steve Atkins says:

12:27pm | 05/06/09

Congratualtions to the Nationals for having the balls to stand up to the hollow rhetoric behind the ETS ( Employment Trashing Scheme) .

The Liberals by comparison still try to play themselves off as “Labor Lite” on the issue and they are an embarrasment on this issue to this Liberal voter (and to a squillion others) who consider it little more than part of a big scam designed to line the pockets of a shifty few while they conveniently adopt a face of care and concern for the Earth. Downright dishonest but then we are talking about the Left here along with some albeit well meaning folk who happen to have a level of self interest as a convenient aside.

From the shrill cries of earlier respondents you can see that unfortunately you got a bit to close to the bone by observing that the Greens may in fact be the ALP by any other name.  This has been pretty obvious for a long time and those on the Coalition side that failed to recognise this would make good targets to sell insurance or perhaps the Harbour Bridge to.  Unfortunately they are the same gullible ones who swallow AGW rhetoric . The sooner the Coalition realise that wooing the Green vote is futile and place them in the spot they deserve to be on all voting papers (last), the sooner a more credible and above all else principled Opposition will be presented to the public.  Keep up the fight Mr Joyce. People are largely unaware of just how much it will cost them and worse than that there are no guarantees that any benefits will flow other than to make a lot of people feel good about themselves. This little black duck doesn’t feel like paying to prop up the egos of the Left and deluded unless there are clear and tangible benefits to the planet - not until all issues are clearly addressed and certainly not when so many questions remain unanswered.

Aldaron says:

12:43pm | 05/06/09

Oh, the irony.

A member of the Liberal-National COALITION whining about the Greens and the ALP cooperating. How dare they!

Matt Cartwright says:

12:44pm | 05/06/09

“Are Greens really discerning in where their preferences go, or is their musing at election times no more than a ploy to move all policy in their direction and, regardless, they will always be of the Left.”

How could the Greens give preferences to the political right when its members are saying things like:

“I believe also that the ETS is the most fraudulent job-destroying policy waffle that I would not vote for, even in a pink fit.”

I don’t see how any environmentally responsible party could in any way align itself with the Australian political conservatives.

Peter says:

01:18pm | 05/06/09

Aldaron,

I disagree. People of the purely environmentalist protection persuasion will always side with the Greens - the basis figure as a percentage of our population is about 8%. Because the Greens do not garner enough of the vote to get into power - their preferences and support in legislative processes emboldens the only party that they will ever side on - the Labor party.

If you vote for the Green’s it benefits the ALP.

It is the informal nature of this relationship which gives the Green voter a separation of moral culpability when Labor makes decisions contrary to unrealistic Green views.

Ben Payne says:

01:48pm | 05/06/09

“… two retailers with 80 per cent market share is not a market, it is a duopoly that has the market presence to exploit”

Are you talking about the 2 party system of government that we have in Australia?  You are correct; the duopoly does exploit its market share, with policies that are so similar as to make little difference as to choice.

Kevin’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (and from that, an expectation that carbon reduction would actually be pursued, rather than the pathetic bleating about business losing money, and the “we’ll do it if they do it” mentality) was one of the main reasons they got my vote at the last election.  And while something is better than nothing, the resulting policies are a shameful capitulation to the lobbying of the worst offenders.

To quote Robert A Heinlein in ‘Life Line’:
“There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back”

Such is the situation we are faced with now.  Corporations that have made mountains of money while destroying our environment (which, admittedly, may have been unknown or questionable at the time), now face a reduction in their profits in order to repair this damage. 

Of course, the corporations will not reduce their profits, and their CEOs will still take home pay packets that are orders of magnitude greater than the average worker.  Instead, it will be the “laying off” of these average workers and the increase in prices to average consumers, which will be expected to pay for any changes that are required.

The whole system of corporations law needs to be addressed – to have a legal entity, with all the rights of an individual, but almost none of the responsibilities, that has a lower rate of tax (which is based on profit, not income), where investors in that entity have limited liability, and no accountability, where the people in charge of managing these entities are rewarded for down-sizing, cutting pay rates, and off-shore outsourcing, and generally doing whatever it takes to make money – this is, quite plainly, where the problem lies.  It is completely out of hand, and needs to be stopped immediately. 

Now that we know that carbon emissions are destroying our planet, we need to seek redress from those that caused it – and I don’t mean the workers and consumers, I mean the investors and managers, those that made the decisions, and those that provided the funds, creating the profit driven mentality in the first place.

AB says:

02:11pm | 05/06/09

I vote Greens and the only two pieces of legislation that Barnaby raised: the"stimulus packages, alcopops tax,” are issues that I am glad the Greens supported. 

That might not be true for all Greens voters, but in contrast to the other major parties and the nationals, they have a very inclusive process for their members to ensure they are representing their interests and their votes.

Surely this is the idea of a political party? To represent their members/voters within the parliamentary process?  Isn’t that what the national party and in particular Barnaby purports to do?

Steve Atkins says:

02:17pm | 05/06/09

“Alderon”,

The Coalition have an open and honest portrayal of their relationship - (  the name sort of gives it away ).
The Greens and Labor turn out the lights before they jump in bed lest the less informed find out .
That’s not irony Aldaron that’s deceit.
But then again honesty often seems to be an optional extra for people dedicated to a certain political persuasion of some,  eh ?

Andy from KIRRA says:

03:29pm | 05/06/09

I’m glad there are a few polly’s like Barnaby who have a bit of ticker and who stand up against issues like ETS Scheme (End thy Species) and the (now thankfully dead) RIO Chinalco deal. Whether you agree with what he says or not, at least he has a position unlike Rudd who’s the only man who can walk down both sides of the street.
Give’em heaps BJ.

watty says:

06:57pm | 05/06/09

The Greens the honest “brokers” in the Senate… just how many times have they voted with the Coalition?

Perhaps rebadging to the “Anti-development Party”  would be more appropriate ?

Aldaron says:

08:59pm | 05/06/09

There is nothing sinister or underhanded about the Greens and the ALP. Your preferences go where YOU direct them. If you want to let a party decide on that, then it’s your own lookout.

If the “less informed” aren’t willing to actually LEARN about our political process, or pick up a newspaper and investigate issues from time to time, they deserve what they get.

Ben Aveling says:

12:37pm | 06/06/09

Barnaby,

You wrote “The Right has only political commentators to ventilate right issues. They do not have a political party like the Left has the Greens.”

Could you expand on that?  In particular, could you expand on the role that you think the Liberal and the National parties respectively should play?

Andrew Thomas says:

01:33pm | 23/03/10

Barnaby,

I just read this article in reverse with bottom paragraph first to top paragraph.

It made just as much sense? Was this an intentional “palindrome” article technique or do you just have no idea how to write things without them coming out as a series of random thoughts?

Andrew